|
On January 13 2012 04:27 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 04:05 Torte de Lini wrote:
I mean, the sponsorship would ensure that the show would keep going without fear or harm, but if that was an issue, wouldn't you have just stayed with MLG (It had some drawbacks, but it also ensured a lot of things [I assume]).
edit: I really sound interrogatory, I don't know how else to form the question though -_- The things in the statement are not bullshit. MLG is focusing on their competitions now and thinning everything else out. That has been really clear to the whole community. We could have clung on, but it wasn't in everyone's best interests. Also the thing about a league not having its own journalists is also real and good. We should be as independent as possible. I believe Sundance sees the value of having a show like SOTG in the scene for the good of the scene, which in turn is good for MLG. If that means that when MLG does something really fucked up then we call them out on it, I think he's okay with that. He doesn't plan to let MLG fuck up and if it does, then he would want a place like SOTG to go on and apologize and make MLG even stronger the next time.
Sort of like Dallas? I don't understand why everyone thinks this is the end of the world. For $5/month you can subscribe to some of your favorite players and help them out. If Liquid'Tyler or Day[9] suddenly needed money, 100% I'll send them what I can because I don't want them to go away.
I actually feel the need to qutoe Tyler's other two posts, just because people really don't seem to understand that old tag line "Someone's gotta pay."
|
On January 13 2012 05:53 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 05:20 chisake wrote:On January 13 2012 05:13 iNcontroL wrote:
nobody is making the argument the show would fail without sponsorship.
Money makes it more justifiable for us the hosts and it allows us to improve the quality of the show if we were to raise the production via tech or perks etc...
Again, the show will be here whether we are sponsored or not. You will get the show for free if you choose, no matter what. If you want to support us you can. If we can find someone to support us as well that too should be fine. This stupid notion that everyone should work or do things for free needs to stop. We aren't putting a gun to anyone's head. Absolutely! The whole thing is opt-in, what is problem?! They are leaving you with the choice. If they forced you to charge it would still be justifiable, but they aren't b/c they don't want to alienate anyone. I guess you really can't make everyone happy... i dont think a single person has said they have a problem with the business model proposed by jp? we are just disussing the whys and hows and whatnot.
Perhaps I was a little too emphatic, but it makes me frustrated when people act so entitled to the content guys like SotG provide, especially when their pay structure is opt-in. And if you read back, you'll see Tyler's post about people thinking money is bad that sparked the conversation.
I'm not alone in stating that it is ok for them to ask for money for their production. It's pretty obvious the what/why, and they have said it (in the quote in my original post for example). More money = better quality production and compensation for putting the show together on a regular basis.
Cheers.
Edit: Support mainly seems to be with the SotG guys, and there are only a few naysayers, so I dunno if we're beating a dead horse here...
|
I'm european and i'll be able to watch the show in the future live, but i don't think i will.
I like to watch the VOD because i can pause at any point and resume whenever i want. However i'd think that the majority of european viewers will consider watching the show live, at least for the first few episodes of 2012.
State of the Game is a real quality entertainment product for me, i'm loving it and it's always a highlight of the week for me.
|
On January 13 2012 05:53 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 05:20 chisake wrote:On January 13 2012 05:13 iNcontroL wrote:
nobody is making the argument the show would fail without sponsorship.
Money makes it more justifiable for us the hosts and it allows us to improve the quality of the show if we were to raise the production via tech or perks etc...
Again, the show will be here whether we are sponsored or not. You will get the show for free if you choose, no matter what. If you want to support us you can. If we can find someone to support us as well that too should be fine. This stupid notion that everyone should work or do things for free needs to stop. We aren't putting a gun to anyone's head. Absolutely! The whole thing is opt-in, what is problem?! They are leaving you with the choice. If they forced you to charge it would still be justifiable, but they aren't b/c they don't want to alienate anyone. I guess you really can't make everyone happy... i dont think a single person has said they have a problem with the business model proposed by jp? we are just disussing the whys and hows and whatnot.
That's not true. There are definitely people whining about the thought of SotG making money or charging for things in addition to the current show. The horror!
|
If I might suggest something;
Take a page from Day9's book, let subscribers interact with you on a closer level than "reading questions from chat and twitter". Maybe play games with subscribers, or take skype call questions from them (that would weed out trolls as well).
This way, subscribers also bring content to the table, as well as making non subscribers jealous.
|
On January 13 2012 07:13 darkscream wrote:
If I might suggest something;
Take a page from Day9's book, let subscribers interact with you on a closer level than "reading questions from chat and twitter". Maybe play games with subscribers, or take skype call questions from them (that would weed out trolls as well).
This way, subscribers also bring content to the table, as well as making non subscribers jealous.
I actually like those ideas a lot...and am willing to pay $5-$10/month to support you guys.
|
I would be willing to pay some kind of subscription fee. A few bucks a month for something as awesome as SotG is a fantastic deal compared to most other forms of entertainment.
|
On January 13 2012 04:14 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 03:25 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why does SOTG need a sponsor for though? When done right, business benefits everyone. At the very least, it ought to benefit some and not hurt anyone else. For example, ideally if we have a sponsor then these benefits would come about: the sponsor has increased sales, the hosts earn money for their work, the viewers benefit from the increased value of incentivized hosts (higher quality work and higher chance that it doesn't stop).
As long as incentivized hosts doesn't mean Artosis stops looking completely bored all the time he isn't talking about mech I'm all for this (that's about half of what's funny about the show to me).
|
On January 13 2012 07:08 SeraKuDA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 06:13 kevinthemighty wrote:
Seriously I think you guys should charge 10 cents per viewer per episode. If you think about it, you get 5000 viewers, that's $500. I honestly don't care about what you do with the money. It's only 10 cents for me, and no matter what you talk about, it's not something I'd ask a refund about.
I hate this notion that the work and effort people do should be considered a "service to the community" and that it should be free. The mentality that there are things in life that should be free is a joke. Everything has a cost, and it is downright selfish to think that others should absorb it.
These guys are dedicating 2 hours (more for JP) to entertain you and let you into their thought processes, time that could be easily spent doing other things. And obviously there are people who care about what they have to say, otherwise they wouldn't watch the show. 10 cents is a very minimal amount to pay to be entertained. I think the main problem is that people (including me) are generally lazy when it comes to grabbing their credit card (or whatever) and actually setting up the payment. The actual amount charged isn't what hinders most people.
It's sad when people who likely don't contribute anything to the community can't bring themselves to make the slightest efforts to do so. Think of this (or JP's subscription implementation) as a meager contribution to what they and many others do. I'm not singling you out necessarily, but I mean this as a general statement.
|
On January 13 2012 07:20 kevinthemighty wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:08 SeraKuDA wrote:On January 13 2012 06:13 kevinthemighty wrote:
Seriously I think you guys should charge 10 cents per viewer per episode. If you think about it, you get 5000 viewers, that's $500. I honestly don't care about what you do with the money. It's only 10 cents for me, and no matter what you talk about, it's not something I'd ask a refund about.
I hate this notion that the work and effort people do should be considered a "service to the community" and that it should be free. The mentality that there are things in life that should be free is a joke. Everything has a cost, and it is downright selfish to think that others should absorb it.
These guys are dedicating 2 hours (more for JP) to entertain you and let you into their thought processes, time that could be easily spent doing other things. And obviously there are people who care about what they have to say, otherwise they wouldn't watch the show. 10 cents is a very minimal amount to pay to be entertained. I think the main problem is that people (including me) are generally lazy when it comes to grabbing their credit card (or whatever) and actually setting up the payment. The actual amount charged isn't what hinders most people. It's sad when people who likely don't contribute anything to the community can't bring themselves to make the slightest efforts to do so. Think of this (or JP's subscription implementation) as a meager contribution to what they and many others do. I'm not singling you out necessarily, but I mean this as a general statement.
its sad when people take voluntary payment plans and try to peer pressure people into paying them.
|
I still won't watch sotg live because it is 01:00 for me(CET). But at least we can hope to have the vod by morning (if sotg will use twitch.tv vod system) and the mp3 by next day sometime which is a huge improvement.
You make me happy sotg. Thanks for all the free entertainment and I am looking forward to listening to my favorite show on the planet.
|
sotg is a a perfect time for me. I get out of school at 3:45 and it starts at 5 here 
|
I am always on the fence about whether shows should be subscription based or not. Its very hard to tell whether losing a certain percentage of the viewers is worth the amount of money you make or not.
It hasn't really been said besides being able to pay for better equipment and production value what the money would be used for. Are the pillars of the show hoping to make some hourly like $50 an hour for their time or are they just trying to help justify taking their time away from practicing/coaching or casting to do SOTG.
I know that a decent amount of poker shows have gone both ways. They have gotten backers to help pay for production value and then used advertisements to pay for some of the casters and show hosts. This seems like the better way to do things because other poker shows that have gone to subscription fees have lost tons of viewers. I think that SOTG is one of the shows that helps get more people interested in SC2 outside of the normal audience. We don't want to hinder peoples chances to get into SC2 by seeing this show that isn't just starcraft and is actually a fun podcast to watch.
Someone pointed out you wouldn't make buttloads of money, but it is acutally a very large sum. $5 subscription per quarter or something, or a $20 for the year might be understandable. If you lower it to $10 for the year over 10k viewers this is a significant sum, 100k. I can't argue with the possibility of profit and that is not a measly sum. It wouldn't make sense for the SOTG crew to charge you $0.10 for a subscription because that would make less people watch because of the inconvience and not generate any income.
I would love to see the SOTG crew do something great with a subscription though. Maybe hold a $10k tourney or something sweet now that they are independent. It would be awesome to have them all shoutcast some fun games that would create a good reason to support the show besides just loyalty.
Finally I would love the show to start at 8 pm EST instead of 7 because that gives everyone more of a chance to make most of the broadcast rather than missing tons of it if you are pacific time. I also know that the early start time might limit the pillars that can be involved.
|
On January 13 2012 07:27 lightrise wrote:
I am always on the fence about whether shows should be subscription based or not. Its very hard to tell whether losing a certain percentage of the viewers is worth the amount of money you make or not.
The show itself will still be free though
|
On January 13 2012 07:22 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:20 kevinthemighty wrote:On January 13 2012 07:08 SeraKuDA wrote:On January 13 2012 06:13 kevinthemighty wrote:
Seriously I think you guys should charge 10 cents per viewer per episode. If you think about it, you get 5000 viewers, that's $500. I honestly don't care about what you do with the money. It's only 10 cents for me, and no matter what you talk about, it's not something I'd ask a refund about.
I hate this notion that the work and effort people do should be considered a "service to the community" and that it should be free. The mentality that there are things in life that should be free is a joke. Everything has a cost, and it is downright selfish to think that others should absorb it.
These guys are dedicating 2 hours (more for JP) to entertain you and let you into their thought processes, time that could be easily spent doing other things. And obviously there are people who care about what they have to say, otherwise they wouldn't watch the show. 10 cents is a very minimal amount to pay to be entertained. I think the main problem is that people (including me) are generally lazy when it comes to grabbing their credit card (or whatever) and actually setting up the payment. The actual amount charged isn't what hinders most people. It's sad when people who likely don't contribute anything to the community can't bring themselves to make the slightest efforts to do so. Think of this (or JP's subscription implementation) as a meager contribution to what they and many others do. I'm not singling you out necessarily, but I mean this as a general statement. its sad when people take voluntary payment plans and try to peer pressure people into paying them.
What if they actually just said f it, we're going to start charging $1? Is that like "peer pressure"?
Of course they are going to promote the volunteer system. Every volunteer system does! Like public broadcasting, wikipedia, whatever.
No cheers this time.
|
Nooooopo. I can no longer watch live. 4pm for west coast 
|
On January 13 2012 07:31 chisake wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:22 turdburgler wrote:On January 13 2012 07:20 kevinthemighty wrote:On January 13 2012 07:08 SeraKuDA wrote:On January 13 2012 06:13 kevinthemighty wrote:
Seriously I think you guys should charge 10 cents per viewer per episode. If you think about it, you get 5000 viewers, that's $500. I honestly don't care about what you do with the money. It's only 10 cents for me, and no matter what you talk about, it's not something I'd ask a refund about.
I hate this notion that the work and effort people do should be considered a "service to the community" and that it should be free. The mentality that there are things in life that should be free is a joke. Everything has a cost, and it is downright selfish to think that others should absorb it.
These guys are dedicating 2 hours (more for JP) to entertain you and let you into their thought processes, time that could be easily spent doing other things. And obviously there are people who care about what they have to say, otherwise they wouldn't watch the show. 10 cents is a very minimal amount to pay to be entertained. I think the main problem is that people (including me) are generally lazy when it comes to grabbing their credit card (or whatever) and actually setting up the payment. The actual amount charged isn't what hinders most people. It's sad when people who likely don't contribute anything to the community can't bring themselves to make the slightest efforts to do so. Think of this (or JP's subscription implementation) as a meager contribution to what they and many others do. I'm not singling you out necessarily, but I mean this as a general statement. its sad when people take voluntary payment plans and try to peer pressure people into paying them. What if they actually just said f it, we're going to start charging $1? Is that like "peer pressure"? Of course they are going to promote the volunteer system. Every volunteer system does! Like public broadcasting, wikipedia, whatever. No cheers this time.
the show isnt peer pressuring, the show is not a peer of the viewer, thats called advertising. the people in this thread such as the guy i quoted trying to make people feel bad if they dont contribute money, are peer pressuring.
|
On January 13 2012 07:39 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2012 07:31 chisake wrote:On January 13 2012 07:22 turdburgler wrote:On January 13 2012 07:20 kevinthemighty wrote:On January 13 2012 07:08 SeraKuDA wrote:On January 13 2012 06:13 kevinthemighty wrote:
Seriously I think you guys should charge 10 cents per viewer per episode. If you think about it, you get 5000 viewers, that's $500. I honestly don't care about what you do with the money. It's only 10 cents for me, and no matter what you talk about, it's not something I'd ask a refund about.
I hate this notion that the work and effort people do should be considered a "service to the community" and that it should be free. The mentality that there are things in life that should be free is a joke. Everything has a cost, and it is downright selfish to think that others should absorb it.
These guys are dedicating 2 hours (more for JP) to entertain you and let you into their thought processes, time that could be easily spent doing other things. And obviously there are people who care about what they have to say, otherwise they wouldn't watch the show. 10 cents is a very minimal amount to pay to be entertained. I think the main problem is that people (including me) are generally lazy when it comes to grabbing their credit card (or whatever) and actually setting up the payment. The actual amount charged isn't what hinders most people. It's sad when people who likely don't contribute anything to the community can't bring themselves to make the slightest efforts to do so. Think of this (or JP's subscription implementation) as a meager contribution to what they and many others do. I'm not singling you out necessarily, but I mean this as a general statement. its sad when people take voluntary payment plans and try to peer pressure people into paying them. What if they actually just said f it, we're going to start charging $1? Is that like "peer pressure"? Of course they are going to promote the volunteer system. Every volunteer system does! Like public broadcasting, wikipedia, whatever. No cheers this time. the show isnt peer pressuring, the show is not a peer of the viewer, thats called advertising. the people in this thread such as the guy i quoted trying to make people feel bad if they dont contribute money, are peer pressuring.
Volunteer systems also include volunteers trying to help the program.
|
On January 13 2012 06:37 kethers wrote:
I have to chime in on this, and please forgive me if it seems ignorant.
It has been said recently, based upon some polls and stats that SC2 is able to target a very specific demographic of 25-35ish males. Most of this demographic are older and more mature, probably have a job/career (myself included) and are capable of making investments and spending money where it seems like its worth spending money.
Personally I love watching SotG live. I do listen to the mp3 if I miss it, but I tune in live whenever I can. I'm not going to make a big argument about the difference, except just to say that I like watching it live as much as some likes watching a football or basketball game as opposed to a re-run.
However, moving the SotG start time to 7pm EST, which would be 4pm PST, locks out a very specific audience, such as people who work full-time until 5pm or 6pm. This demographic range on the West Coast would no longer be able to enjoy the live entertainment and might potentially lose out on some viewers that have financial means to help SotG/SC2, especially if SotG is interested in sponsors. Therefore I have to wonder if this move in time is correct, because as far as the European time zone is concerned, most people who work regular 8-5 jobs probably couldn't tune into the live show then (sorry for generalization), and with the time change now, probably doesn't make too big of an impact for those people.
I'm in no way saying that this is a bad move, and JP and the other hosts might have already took this into consideration and probably has legitimate reasons for doing so that I haven't thought of. Or they're gaining their target audience as intended and can find a good sponsor, awesome! But I think it deserved a mention. In any case, I'll have to move onto listening to the mp3's now T____T but I still love the show! <3
P.S. sorry for any clunkiness or typos, did this on my iPhone
I don't have anything to add to this, other than to echo iNcontrol's sentiment that you are obviously in the upper tier of those who dwell on the internet. People like you give me hope that every once in a while, you'll find someone in the masses worthwhile. I generally think most people suck pretty hard
Don't know if it counts for anything ,and I'm pretty sure it doesn't to anyone except kethers, but I feel the need to do anything I can that might encourage this behavior.
YOU ROCK kethers. If you're ever around Baltimore, MD let me know, and I'll buy you a drink!..or we can play SC2...or something...I don't really drink...
|
I don't understand how anyone can have an issue with a voluntary subscription model. If you don't want to pay, it won't affect you negatively at all. If anything, you'll get more/better content because the hosts have more resources to put into their work and more impetus to actually take the time to do the show.
I, for example, don't pay for the Day9 subscription thing, but I do get to enjoy the viewer monobattles that he posts VODs of. The fact that Sean is now getting paid to do what he does means he can give all of us more content, not just the people who were willing to pay. Sean is better off (can't pay rent in ESPORTS dollars), the subscribers are better off because they get to play monobattles with him, and the broke/cheap people who didn't pay a cent get more content thanks to the kindness of others. Everybody wins.
The only argument you can make for the hosts getting paid for what they do being a bad thing is that once money changes hands, the person getting paid is obligated to respect and support whoever is paying them. This is a problem when a corporation with a vested interest sponsors the show (like MLG), but if it's the community paying them, who cares? If anything, it's a good thing if the hosts have a "responsibility" to the community to produce quality content, since that's all anybody would ask for.
I guess some people might not like the fact that the hosts are getting paid at all, since they think it's less noble or some stupid bullshit, but I feel bad even dignifying that sentiment with a response. If you don't want the people who make ESPORTS awesome to get compensated in any way, how the fuck is anyone supposed to make their living...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
